CANTRICE COURT OWNERS
Independent owner-maintained website. The Cantrice Court name is used solely to identify the Cantrice Court community in Simi Valley, California, and the subject of this site. This website is not affiliated with, sponsored by, authorized by, or operated by the Cantrice Court Condominium Owners' Association, its Board of Directors, or its management company.
OCTOBER 9, 2026 · FORMAL HOMEOWNER APPEAL

Request to reconsider the $1,999,999.60 roofing assessment

A written appeal asks the Board to base the assessment on documented project costs and adopt transparent financing and hardship protections.

What was requested

Homeowner William Mills informed the Board that he respects the 41–35 vote and supports necessary roof replacement, but requests reconsideration of the total assessment amount and a documented reconciliation to the reported roofing contract and related costs.

  1. Recalculate and reduce the assessment to the final roofing contract plus necessary, reasonable, documented project expenses.
  2. Produce the approved contract and an itemized accounting reconciling costs to the nearly $2 million assessment.
  3. Identify general reserve replenishment separately and address its authorization transparently.
  4. Publish final financing terms and revised per-unit installments, including principal, interest rate, term, fees and repayment options.
  5. Consider reasonable hardship arrangements for owners facing substantial financial burdens.
  6. Put the request on the next open Board meeting agenda and provide a written response.

Why the request matters

The election approved $1,999,999.60, or approximately $20,408 per unit. The letter reports a roofing contract of approximately $1.4 million approved October 7, while earlier Board materials described an approximately $1.6 million roofing estimate. Those are distinct figures. The actual signed contract and full costs require verification.

The letter argues that the Board should distinguish necessary roofing costs from any general reserve replenishment. The ballot package itself disclosed that unused assessment proceeds could replenish reserves. Whether and how that funding can lawfully be included remains a question of the assessment's stated purposes, documented costs, and governing law—not a settled determination on this site.

The appeal cites California Civil Code § 5600(b) and asks for corrective action if warranted. No automatic refund, reduction, or suspension of assessment payments has been established.

Read the actual letter

October 9 formal Board appeal · public copy (PDF)

Source: William Mills, formal request to the Cantrice Court Board, dated October 9, 2026, two pages. This site is independently maintained. Personal contact details were omitted from the posted copy. No Board response is represented as received or accepted.

Assessment vote and accounting background → · October 29 ADR overview →